2. The rationale behind the judgment is that the Defendant’s mistake was properly recognized and reflected, and that the Defendant partially repaid the amount of damage by deducting a part of the benefits.

On the other hand, the Defendant embezzled a large amount of money, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime in spite of the fact that he/she was sentenced to suspended execution by receiving a letter of confinement from the victim while being tried for embezzlement of the same victim’s liquor, etc. in the past, and the Defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial was held. The victim was punished against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s use of part of the embezzled money for sports competitions and entertainment expenses, etc. is disadvantageously unfavorable to the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and the environment, etc., the Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.